↓ Skip to main content

Measuring mistreatment of women during childbirth: a review of terminology and methodological approaches

Overview of attention for article published in Reproductive Health, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
policy
1 policy source
twitter
25 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
88 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
447 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Measuring mistreatment of women during childbirth: a review of terminology and methodological approaches
Published in
Reproductive Health, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12978-017-0403-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Virginia Savage, Arachu Castro

Abstract

Although mistreatment of women during facility-based childbirth has received increasing recognition as a critical issue throughout the world, there remains a lack of consensus on operational definitions of mistreatment and best practices to assess the issue. Moreover, only minimal research has focused on mistreatment in Latin America and the Caribbean, a region notable for social inequalities and inequitable access to maternal health care. In this article, we discuss the results of a literature review that sought to contribute to the determination of best practices in defining and measuring the mistreatment of women during childbirth, particularly within Latin America and the Caribbean. The review includes a total of 57 English, Spanish, and Portuguese-language research publications and eight legal documents that were published between 2000 and 2017. While the typologies of "disrespect and abuse" and "mistreatment during facility-based childbirth" are most frequently employed in global studies, "obstetric violence" remains the most commonly operationalized term in Latin America and the Caribbean in both research and policy contexts. Various researchers have advocated for the use of those three different typologies, yet the terms all share commonalities in highlighting the medicalization of natural processes of childbirth, roots in gender inequalities, parallels with violence against women, the potential for harm, and the threat to women's rights. For measuring mistreatment, half of the research publications in this review use qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews and focus groups. After analyzing the strengths and limitations of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods approaches to assessing mistreatment, we recommend mixed methods designs as the optimal strategy to evaluate mistreatment and advocate for the inclusion of direct observations that may help bridge the gap between observed measures and participants' self-reported experiences of mistreatment. No matter the conceptual framework used in future investigations, we recommend that studies seek to accomplish three objectives: (1) to measure the perceived and observed frequencies of mistreatment in maternal health settings, (2) to examine the macro and micro level factors that drive mistreatment, and (3) to assess the impact of mistreatment on the health outcomes of women and their newborns.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 25 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 447 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 447 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 70 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 45 10%
Researcher 41 9%
Student > Bachelor 32 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 6%
Other 78 17%
Unknown 155 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 83 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 76 17%
Social Sciences 59 13%
Psychology 18 4%
Arts and Humanities 9 2%
Other 42 9%
Unknown 160 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 37. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 February 2023.
All research outputs
#1,092,475
of 25,243,918 outputs
Outputs from Reproductive Health
#84
of 1,557 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,428
of 334,504 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Reproductive Health
#3
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,243,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,557 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 334,504 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.